Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('List') and the nature of data (threshold alerts triggered), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose whether alerts are historical or only currently active, how results are ordered, or any permission requirements. The threshold information adds context but the behavior is not fully transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('List all') and includes the specific threshold values. Every part is useful and there is no redundant or vague wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and thresholds. However, it lacks details about the response format, ordering, or whether the alerts are active/historical. Given no output schema, the description could provide more context on what a returned alert looks like, making this merely adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (api_key and budget_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only reinforces that alerts are for a budget. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the verb 'List' with a specific resource ('threshold alerts triggered for a budget') and includes the exact threshold values (50%, 75%, 90%, 100%). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_budget or department_report by focusing on alert notifications.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need to see budget threshold alerts), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusion criteria. For example, it doesn't mention that get_budget covers general budget details or that weekly_report might summarize alerts. The context is clear but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.